The single judge held the special application infructuous due to the withdrawal of the possession notice challenged by the applicant, rendering a settlement impossible.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH
SA/301/2023 DILBAGH SINGH Vs PUNJAB AND SIND BANK
04.12.2024 Item No.5
Present: Sh.Akhilesh Vyas, Counsel for the Applicant. Sh.ABS Sidhu, Counsel for respondent bank.
Mr.Vyas states that applicant has deposited Rs. 6 lacs as undertaken by him.
Mr.Sidhu, counsel for the respondent bank has made a statement at the Bar that the possession notice, which the applicant has challenged in this case, has been withdrawn by the bank. He further states that applicant has filed IA challenging the subsequent possession notice. Mr.Sidhu states that the subsequent possession notice cannot be challenged by filing IA. Mr.Sidhu further states that another account of the applicant has been declared fraud by the bank. Accordingly, there cannot be any settlement in this case.
Since, the bank has withdrawn the possession notice which has been challenged by the applicant. I am of the considered view that the present SA has been rendered infructuous .
File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
(A S Narang) Presiding Officer DRT-I, Chandigarh
MANOJ
Dilbagh Singh
Punjab and Sind Bank
A S Narang
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
